Belgian trade unions are opposing a January 2004 European Commission proposal for a Directive on 'services in the internal market'. The unions fear the plans will damage the protection and rights of service sector workers and the quality of public services. In June, they organised a public demonstration against the proposal in Brussels, supported by a broad coalition of NGOs and political parties.
June 2004 was a busy political month in Belgium, with elections to the European Parliament and regional parliaments (the latter are very important, given Belgium's federal structure). In the run-up to the elections, social partner organisations at various levels put together their proposals and demands for the next regional governments. Social services sector unions in particular held active protests for higher wages and a better quality of work in the future, while prison guards protested against alleged understaffing and excessive overtime. However, the most high-profile event was probably a protest demonstration on 4 June against a draft EU Directive on 'services in the internal market'. The demonstration was supported by a broad coalition of left-wing political parties and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), with the lead taken by the two largest trade union confederations - the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV) and the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV).
Content of draft Directive
On 13 January 2004, the Internal Market Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, submitted the draft Directive on services in the internal market. The stated aim is to to create a real internal market in services by requiring EU Member States to cut administrative burdens and 'excessive red tape' that can currently prevent businesses from offering their services across borders or from opening premises in other Member States. By encouraging cross-border economic activity and boosting competition, the proposed Directive would - the Commission claims - increase choice, improve quality and bring down prices.
The proposed Directive covers services provided both to consumers and to businesses. It covers any business activity that constitutes a service except for those services where there are already specific initiatives to complete the internal market (notably financial services, telecoms and transport). Services covered include: professional services such as consulting, architecture, engineering or legal advice; business services, such as technical testing, data processing and employment and advertising agencies; security services; environmental services such as waste management; retail services; travel agencies, hotels, restaurants and entertainment; health services; and the services of craftspeople (such as plumbers and carpenters). According to the Commission, the draft Directive covers all services that correspond to an economic activity within the meaning of the case law of the European Court of Justice. It does not, therefore, cover 'non-economic' services of general interest services, such as state schools and welfare provision, provided directly and without remuneration by national or local government authorities in furtherance of their social, cultural, educational or judicial functions. It does, however, cover services of general interest if they are of an economic nature, such as postal services, energy and telecommunications, but only in so far as they are not covered by other specific EU legislation.
To achieve greater liberalisation and deregulation of these service activities across the EU, governments would be required to remove a 'large number of unnecessary barriers'. Among other provisions, the two key measures are proposed for the completion of the internal market: the removal of 'unnecessary barriers' (such as complex, lengthy and costly authorisation and licensing procedures) that prevent or discourage operators from other Member States from setting up on their territory; and introduction of the 'country of origin' principle. This latter principle means that, once a service provider is operating legally in one Member State, it can market its services in others without having to comply with further rules in these 'host' Member States. Service providers would no longer be subject to numerous divergent national regulations, administrative requirements and duplication of supervisory controls that 'raise costs and often dissuade service providers from engaging in cross-border activities'.
Trade union criticism
The proposed 'Bolkestein Directive' seeks to eliminate all barriers to the development of service activities and the completion of the internal market. However, Belgian trade unions argue that these 'barriers' are often rules imposed by governments with the intention of: guaranteeing better services for everyone; protecting employees; ensuring the sound management of public resources; imposing price standards; guarantee access to services for all; and ensuring the quality of the services. As a result, claim the unions, there is a danger that the Directive, if adopted, will have catastrophic effects for citizens. Social, fiscal and environmental 'dumping' practices will be encouraged, it is argued, while: workers' rights and protection will come under greater pressure; activities such as healthcare, education and culture will become more commercial; and public service sectors run the risk of becoming privatised.
The trade unions' basic criticism of the draft Directive is that it comprises a direct threat to the 'European social model' without taking account of democratic rules. The unions are convinced that that the quality of public services will diminish if the Directive achieves its aim of removing as many regulations as possible. Their main opposition is, however, targeted at the other principle of the Bolkestein proposal. The 'country of origin' principle - the trade unions argue - comes down to a legal incentive for companies to move to countries with the least strict legislation on social, fiscal and environmental issues, and the creation of 'letterbox companies' offering services at low prices, which will be able to operate from their registered offices across the whole territory of the Union. The consequence, it is feared, will be enormous pressure on countries with social, fiscal and environmental standards that protect the general interest. In Belgium, the unions fear a massive breakdown of regulation of activities such as healthcare and employment agencies. In this latter sector Belgian unions have successfully lobbied, in the past, to protect important labour standards and the monitoring of these standards by the public administration, with the aim of cushioning the effects of this kind of labour market liberalisation.
The unions also see in the new proposal a second indirect attempt by the European Commission to attack current labour regulations relating to the provision of port services. In November 2003, the European Parliament voted down a Commission proposal for a Directive to liberalise port services (EU0312203N). The unions feared that this proposal would have opened up the sector to workers without adequate qualifications and experience, thus endangering employment for dock workers and lowering health and safety standards, and they saw the proposal's rejection as a great success.
Based on these arguments, Belgian unions organised a public demonstration in Brussels on 4 June, attended by about 5,000 people, and asked the national and regional governments to make an assessment of the impact of the proposed Directive. The unions' manifesto against the proposal received the support of a broad coalition of left-wing political parties and pressure groups, including the Belgian Social Forum (Forum Social de Belgique/Sociaal Forum van België), a civil society network with links to the 'alter-globalisation' movement. Support also came from the mutual organisations - traditional partners of the trade unions - which feel threatened by the draft Directive. These not-for-profit organisations administer health insurance in Belgium. Political parties supporting the unions' manifesto included the Humanist Democratic Centre (Centre démocrate humaniste, CDH), the Christian Democratic Party of Flanders (Christen-Democratische en Vlaamse politieke, CD&V), Ecolo (French-speaking environmentalists), Groen! (Flemish environmentalists), the (French-speaking) Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste, PS) and the (Flemish-speaking) Progressive Social Alternative (Sociaal Progressief Alternatief, SP.A).
The third main union organisation, the Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique/Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België, CGSLB/ACLVB) did not sign the CSC/ACV and FGTB/ABVV manifesto. Although it also opposes the proposed services Directive, CGSLB/ACLVB states that it still has confidence in the Belgian government blocking the Commission proposals. This view contrasts with the strong words spoken by the leaders of the two other union confederations at the June demonstration. For example, a leading CSC/ACV official warned in his speech against 'American' situations in Europe: 'If Bolkestein gets what he wants, Europe will be a liberal far west with a lot of 'hamburger' jobs and no social security.'.
The media coverage of the demonstration was accompanied by a political incident. During an interview for the French-speaking TV channel RTBF, the spokesperson for Mr. Bolkestein made some strong comments about the criticism from the Belgian trade unions, comparing their publications to the 'trash' distributed by the right-wing extremist National Front (Front national) in Brussels’ letter boxes. This 'slip of the tongue' was heavily criticised. In a press release, the European Trade Union Confederation asked for an official apology from the Bolkestein cabinet. The proposed Directive has attracted criticism from ETUC and other European trade union bodies.
Meanwhile, the future of the draft Directive is still, to a large extent, unclear. In any case, the Belgian government seems to have strengthened its opposition to the proposal.
Commentary
In their campaign on the Bolkestein Directive, the Belgian trade unions have once again produced evidence of a broad 'social movement' unionism. Backed by their traditional network and in coalition with NGOs, they have started a political campaign. For the past two years, the Belgian trade unions have increasingly tried to put European social matters on their protest agenda and to mobilise their rank and file around these European issues. Unfortunately for them, it proved, once again, very difficult to attract the attention of the unions' members to a European political issue. A turn-out of 5,000 demonstrators was not very for the Belgian trade unions and their protest partners. (Guy Van Gyes, HIVA-KU Leuven)